Retech

I'll start this off. USAF has 5000+ combat aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) PLAF has only 1,617 combat aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Air_Force) Further, they have only recently created a prototype of a stealth fighter. Considering that these things take several years to get into production, the Chinese won't have any advanced stealth capability (aka useable against anyone with real technology) by the time the war begins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_stealth_fighter Comparatively, US stealth capability is already established and production is either ongoing or has recently been halted, making it easy to continue mass production for conflict. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

The British deserve credit for not being steamrolled on their own land, but let's remember that they were only losing in the first two years of the war.

Actually, we have rare earth mines that we closed because of possible enviromental damage. We could restart those operations for a few years. -- Icu, I responded to it up there.

Again, suicide bombers are only a problem when we cannot gun down everyone down. They can only get close because we're afraid of killing several million civilians and having our credibility damaged --- That's why you don't land any soldiers! Destroy their factories! American business can take up the slack.

Archi, you can't cite yourself as a source, no matter how reliable you think that you are. :P

You know that regular people cannot see something thousands of feet in the air, travelling faster than the speed of sound, and shoot it down with a basic and outdated weapon?

1. Okay, I think you underestimate how much stuff bombs can blow up. They can blow up a LOT OF STUFF. 2. And? 3. Such a change would probably kick start the American economy into a wartime economy, which is what WW2 did to the great depression. 4. Okay, firstly. As stated before, we have ultimate naval supremacy. After bombing and killing all of their cities, we can just sit back and continue our production of bombs. We have so many bombs stockpiled, considering our warlike stance to basically everything. Secondly, who said anything about landing American troops? We can accomplish so much through genocide with naval and air power alone.

DERP Considering that basically all modern planes are stealthed and fly very high, I don't see how people with INFANTRY GUNS can shoot down PLANES. Maybe in the 1940s...

1. China's power currently rests in their enormous urban areas, not their countryside like in the past. Smashing their cities would devastate the CCP hold over China, and it would basically disentigrate. 2. India has a lot of industrial capacity. The demise of China would only allow other nations (including corporations in the United States, that has 1.6 trillion dollars in savings atm) to rise to the occasion and make their own gobs of cash. 3. Americans are so war-like that we only call for peace when we're losing. YEAH, SMACK SOME COMMUNIST BUTT. ---- And yes, Archi. Probably.

While stupid economically, the fact that congressmen compete to have new weapon systems built in their states means that we have a ridiculously large and overpowered Industrial-Military complex.

Wouldn't it be as easy to do in America... Five/Ten nuclear weapons and America is screwed. We are speaking hypothetically, without nuclear weapons, because that just leads to EVERYONE dying. There's no real discussion with nuclear weapons. We have supreme air force and navy (not army, because the Chinese just have so many freakin soldiers), so the enemy would not be able to target us that way. --- And I agree with Rocco for challenges, except maybe the French. (Because they're the French)

It's expensive because we have to use sophisticated technology to figure out who to kill and who not to kill. If we're just killing everyone, it's cheap and easy. Same thing with China. Use naval supremacy and kill everyone in their large cities, and watch as their power disentigrates.

Okay, Rocco is correct. The only reason that we don't win wars is because we care about civilians. If we just killed them, we would win tactically (though every other country hating us for that would be a bad side effect).

I don't think you understand the meaning of per capita... We've had this discussion before.

I think there was like a House episode about this issue, with a tapeworm. :P Anywho, I was just thinking, the salmon cannot be rubbish, because they are Norwegian!

Congrats. =D>

Do you know how to obtain Divine Wind from...other sources?

Brazil. :P

Yeah, definitely interested.

We helped antagonize Mather while you were gone. :P

The problem I see is that you seem to think that everyone in Hegemony is ruling for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, trying to be the people's hero or something. I certainly wasn't playing in that style was I made the Fourth Reich in the first Hegemony, or the Kingdom of Spain in the medieval hegemony. You want to make a hegemony game based on your own method of play, yet you don't stop to consider that not everyone (actually, nobody that I can think of), plays hegemony in the same style as you. Everybody plays it differently, so everything should be open to do. Yeah. Even when I was trying to help the poor and downtrodden as Imperial Russia, it was only so that they became more prosperous = more money for me. Since that's always easier than actually invading anything.

I don't see how that is any different.

Jen scrambles around to find more useful spells, and then takes cover behind the rest of the folks.

Uh Stork, I should've gotten a +1 to my magic roll, which would put it as [3], a success? Edit: If we're just going ahead, Jen searches around frantically for more spells and deciphers them.

Kay, will do.